- The Maryland Senate Budget and Taxation Committee held a hearing on opinions for Senate Bill 885, which would legalize online casinos in Maryland.
- Maryland Senator Ron Watson projects the state could create $1.25-1.5 billion in additional tax revenue over five years through iGaming
- Opponents of the bill pushed gambling addiction and retail casino cannibalization concerns.
Maryland lawmakers are considering the possibility of legalizing iGaming in the state with Senate Bill 885.
On Wednesday, the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee had a hearing on the bill where there were plenty in support, and plenty speaking out against it.
Most of the detractors spoke toward problem gambling concerns, retail casino cannibalization, and potential loss of jobs in the retail sector.
Maryland Senator Ron Watson, who introduced the bill, addressed the concerns in hopes of convincing the committee to advance the bill in the near future.
Watson Projects $250 Million in Tax Revenue Annually
The main push Watson had for legalizing iGaming is the additional tax revenue it could provide the state, citing current budget issues the state is having.
“The Spending Affordability Committee was told we have to deal with a $2.3 billion shortfall next term. The gap widens to $3 billion in 2029, and by fiscal 2031 the gap is projected to be $4.1 billion,” Watson said.
SB 885 would legalize Maryland online casinos and online bingo under regulation of the Maryland State Lottery Commission.
The bill calls for a 20% tax on live dealer games and a 40% tax on all other online casino games. Watson projects that this will create $250 million annually in additional tax revenue, with the potential for $1.5 billion over five years.
Licenses will be $1 million per operator of a full online casino and $500,000 for casinos only offering live dealer.
Watson has introduced iGaming legislation before to no success, but he believes Virginia online casinos moving closer and closer to legalization is reason enough for Maryland to consider doing the same.
“They asked a simple question. New Jersey has generated over $1.5 billion in additional tax revenue since forming iGaming, since 2017. Why not Virginia? Michigan has generated over $1.5 billion in additional tax revenue from iGaming since 2021. Why not Virginia? Pennsylvania has generated nearly $2 billion in additional tax revenue from iGaming since 2020. Why not Virginia,” Watson said of Virginia’s action. “And after reading this, what I say now that Virginia has come along, and now their iGaming legislation has passed both chambers the question is, why not Maryland?”
Problem Gambling Safeguards
Many of those opposed to Watson’s bill spoke out about the concerns of gambling addiction.
Those battling gambling addiction told their stories and the fears they have for Maryland.
Jessica Wellman, who represents the Campaign for Fair Gambling, provided data that shows problem gambling rates for iGaming states sit around 6%. Maryland is already near that at 5.7%. Wellman feels that legalized iGaming would propel Maryland to the highest rate in the nation.
Watson repeatedly stated that Maryland is seeing $200 million in illegal offshore iGaming already. He believes legalization and regulation only makes gambling safer for Maryland residents, while also helping state funding.
“Not $1 of the projected $200 million spent illegally comes back into our state to support our schools, police, infrastructure, or our addiction services,” Watson said. “So, the question is not whether or not iGaming exists, because it does. The question is whether or not we’ll regulate it responsibly, or will we keep pretending that prohibition is working when it clearly is not.”
Watson’s bill also includes some added provisions for RG aside from what you see in most states.
The Problem Gambling Hotline number must be displayed to users when they log on and log off each session. Users must also certify that they’ve read a disclosure identifying the risks associated with gaming before an account can be opened. They will need to recertify that on a monthly basis.
When it comes to revenue 1% of the tax generated will go to Maryland’s Problem Gambling Fund.
Cannibalization Concerns for Retail Sector
Another big concern on legalizing iGaming is the impact it will have on the Maryland brick and mortar casino industry.
Members from casinos in Maryland represented both sides of the argument. Caesars Entertainment and Horseshoe Baltimore spoke out in favor of legalization, while The Cordish Companies and Oceans Down Casino spoke out in opposition of the bill.
Opponents project 15% losses in retail casino revenue from iGaming. However, Watson cited a Virginia study that indicates that online casinos have had an overall positive impact on retail casinos, with 1.7% growth in revenue. Watson believes the study shows that iGaming attracts a different consumer than commercial gaming.
“iGaming expands the overall gaming market and increases the growth rates of overall gaming revenues because iGaming is a complimentary, distinct gaming vertical to land-based casinos,” Watson said.
Watson also noted that Virginia is considering a bill that would allow for a commercial casino in Fairfax County, not far from the MGM National Harbor Hotel & Casino in Oxon Hill, Md.
Watson stated that 33-40% of business for that casino comes from Virginia residents. A new casino in Fairfax could impact $300 million of business.
“That is what cannibalization really, really is,” Watson said of the Virginia casino proposal. “This iGaming bill allows Maryland to remain competitive.”
Funding for Potential Commercial Job Loss
On top of the cannibalization of commercial revenue, brick and mortar casino employees are worried about potential job loss over the introduction of iGaming.
Reps for UNITE Here, which represent casino union jobs across the US noted that NJ iGaming revenue has grown 503% over the past six years, while Atlantic City casino job loss fell by 20% according to the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement.
They also noted that Michigan union jobs in Detroit went from 2,796 in 2009 to 1,767 in 2025.
It should be noted that both of those instances don’t highlight the impact the COVID-19 pandemic had on commercial casino businesses and jobs as well. Michigan didn’t start iGaming until 2021, so it can’t be blamed for any chances from 2009-21. NJ job loss dating back six years would go back to the start of the pandemic as well.
In hopes of addressing some concerns over job loss, Watson stated that SB 885 provides up to $10 million for the Video Lottery Facility Employee Displacement Fund. This fund would be created for any employee that finds themselves displaced by the implementation of iGaming.
He also pointed out that legalized iGaming would bring in hundreds of jobs to the state for live dealer studios to operate.
“The legislation authorizes live dealer games and live dealer studios within the state. In other words, this bill brings jobs,” he said.
Other Highlights of SB 885
Aside from addressing the concerns of online casino legalization, Watson ran down some of the other key points of SB 885.
- Majority of funds go to the Maryland Blueprint for Education.
- Credit Card usage would be prohibited
- Bill gives governor power to join the Multi-State Internet Gaming Agreement for peer-to-peer poker across state lines
The committee will seen take a vote on whether to advance the bill further in the Senate. Ultimately, any legalization efforts would come down to the public. Maryland voters would have the final say on any bill that gets passed through chambers.
The post Maryland Senate Committee Hears Arguments For, Against Online Casino Legalization Bill appeared first on Sports Betting Dime.
from Sports Betting Dime https://ift.tt/KQRBEuz
via IFTTT
Comments
Post a Comment